"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1792

Had the new mic sent by Audyssey not fixed your boosted highs, would you still feel this way?

A very small percentage of folks are having this issue despite new mics, following the guide, etc. I was one of them, but luckily for me it was "user error" in the sense I thought Audyssey was a one-target-curve-fits-all solution when it turns out it isn't. Until I discovered that, I was getting pretty frustrated with well-intentioned folks telling me that I was doing something wrong in my setup when I was not. Especially when 99% of the folks here rave about how great Audyssey sounds, and you so badly want it to sound great too, but for some unknown reason it just won't. Can you understand how that would get frustrating after awhile? ;-)

A bad mic is no-brainer solution #2 (behind follow-the-setup-guide-to-the-letter which is solution #1). Once those two options are exhausted, along with ruling out faulty A/V equipment, that's where the *real* troubleshooting adventures begin! I think that's the point of the posters, is that once you get past the fairly obvious answers, the available help really drops off, from the forum or from Audyssey itself. In those cases, a rehash of solution #1 over and over becomes counterproductive and outside the box solutions are what's really sought... ;-)

Otherwise, AVRs get returned like we just saw on the 4311ci owner's thread a few days ago for this very reason. "Incompatibility" was cited, and may very well exist with certain loudspeaker performance characteristics. We will never know, however, for the reasons cited above. Another chance to "improve" the algorithm through a real-world use case lost forever. :-(

Well, it's unfortunate that you feel that neither Chris nor the folks on this thread have been able to help you. From my personal experience and observing the experiences of many on this thread, Chris spends an amazing amount of time helping out individual users with their Audyssey problems. It's really quite extraordinary that a man in his position does this. Based on the equipment I've owned, the only two A/V companies that provide anything close to this level of individual customer service are Sonos and Oppo.

Maybe you should give us another try?

I suspect a speaker compatibility issue is the cause of my problem as well.

Hi Tandy, among the many tips you have received here and from Chris (indirectly) on boosted HF have you tried to raise the mic above seated ear hight during measurements?

Thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I finally sat down at a computer where I could actually view the PDF (couldn't see it on my phone).

I do have one question *raises hand*

In my reading it seems the group delay is caused inherently by the driver, and to eliminate it you would need a different driver size for every frequency reproduced? Do I have that correct?

If that's true, I won't bother to ask how a speaker designer goes about reducing or eliminating it since that would be OT

Edit: Just saw this PDF too

So the group delay can be impacted by the enclosure but not eliminated I suppose due to the whole driver thing?

Thanks

I think these optimizations are far more important to stereo listening then to movies since the sub l/r combination is vital to stereo music but in movies the sub gets the .1 on its own.

But most use bass management, so still important, no?

@ keith, re: Audyssey FAQ.

Can someone please explain the logic for this snippet in the "two subs" section?:


I'm getting annoyed at people starting to ask in Denon threads now why they can't use their dual sub outputs on non XT32 receivers because they think Audyssey won't work.

What is the rationale for this? I understand how it helped for those X007 Onkyos with the half-assed SubEQ HT implementation, but WTF is the point of that advice as a general rule for receivers with the basic ol' dual sub output? It's just an internal y-split so why the need to scare users and make them go buy an external RCA y-splitter?

The reason given is: "This is because MultEQ and MultEQ XT cannot EQ two subs as two subs." That sentence in no way explains why you can't use the built-in sub splitter by connecting one sub to each sub outlet, either way it is true that MultEQ / XT cannot EQ them separately. It will still ping, set level, and calibrate the two subs as one unit in either case.

So.... whassup wit dat?

Ok, another try. Audyssey produces a very bright sound in my room. When I disable it, the brightness goes away. I know that Audyssey is supposed to roll off high frequencies, so I suspect something is wrong. I have followed the setup guide to the letter. I have also read the FAQ and made adjustments accordingly, so I'm certain my technique is sound. I have tried 3 measurement microphones all appropriate for my receiver, one of which came directly from Audyssey Labs. I have also swapped out the receiver itself. I have also confirmed that my 5,000 dollar Krell speakers are in good working order. Ive even placed some room treatments which I didn't think I should need, but I'm committed to great sound. The brightness remains.

Can you provide 3 useful recommendations for how to reduce or eliminate the Audyssey-induced brightness in my room? Please ensure your suggestions are topics/concepts not mentioned in the guide, FAQ, nor have anything to do with equipment/mic failure since I have checked these things already.

If you choose to answer, you will help some posters who are at this stage of their experience. If you choose not to answer, you will further prove the point I was making in my last post.

By the way, I am totally satisfied with my Audyssey sound, and the example above is hypothetical for me (but not for some other posters here). However, because I know at least one of them here is not a newb when it comes to audio setup, I tend to believe he is not experiencing "user error" but rather some yet-to-be discovered shortcoming. It is the spirit of discussion and learning that these folks are after, in my opinion.

As far as your comment regarding the help I've received, the folks here and at Audyssey Labs are generally very helpful and keen to share knowledge and discoveries of interest to me. However, on this one topic in particular, once it gets beyond the obvious troubleshooting of defective mic or bad technique, I still feel that folks are kinda left on their own and/or provided the same old advice that doesn't solve their problem, often by folks who get to a wonderful calibration on their first or second try and can't imagine how it's possible that great results don't come so quickly and easily for others.

I think that is what rubs me and some of the other folks that have similarly commented the wrong way at times.

Just my 2 cents...thanks for listening! :-)

Hello guys!

Hired an architect to do my entertainment room's (not dedicated theater) sound acoustic design.

Room's 3.8m width now and 7m length.

Here's what he came up with:

Metal framing on both sides (and edge of the projector side) with rockwool inside and gypsum board as the final layer.

How effective will rockwool be underneath gypsum boards in terms of helping the room acoustic?

Thank you!

I do not understand why you keep offering to help me where there is no issue? Once I began using the correct Audyssey-recommended target curve for my room size, all of my boosted HF issues went away. Had you pointed me in this direction back when I needed it, I would have been eternally grateful though. :-)

Wouldn't raising the mic above seated ear height be an "unintended use" of the system, totally against The Rules(TM), and hence a Violation of the nonexistent End User Licensing Agreement? :-) In all seriousness, I am happy to see that you're willing to step outside of the confines of the guidelines when appropriate.

Anyway, that kind of recommendation sounds like that rogue poster who has been suggesting to a few desperate folks to tilt their mics as a last ditch save effort before returning their AVRs. :-)

So, what's the problem?

Hi,


The problem is that when within the very same global installation (speakers, room, etc...), on a Denon A100, Onkyo 5508, Denon 4311 (I owned all of them) when you apply the exact same Pro attenuation curve, you don't get the same end result.

As in the Denon A100/4311 a Pro Roll Off Curve 1 will get you a sort of "sibilant" sound where the SSS are enhanced, when with the same Roll Off Curve 1 in the Onkyo 5508, this is not the case and everything sounds fine.

So my room being a Roll Off Curve 1 type of room, in this context I had to calibrate my actual 4311 with Pro Roll Off Curve 2, to get rid of this sibilance, which hasn't still completely disapeared and that can be (slightly) heard on some specific recordings.

Now do I say that I don't enjoy my actual 4311? No. I'm saying that I'm surprised that such different results can exist, with the same (initially 3.4 and now 3.5) Audyssey Pro software.

My 2€c,

Hugo

How do they compare when you are not using Audyssey at all? Could'nt they just have two different "types" of sound? There are too many variables in your comparison to do any sort of conclusion about the Audyssey implementation in the various receivers.

And the problem is that some well-intentioned folks around here will take a post like Hugo's above and insist that he didn't read the setup guide, has a bad mic, etc. because they feel such variability in Audyssey results just can't be possible. That doesn't help get to the bottom of these types of cases, but rather encourages folks to give up or not speak out, which is the true disappointment for those of us here who want to learn everything we can about Audyssey--the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Hi again,


Sure. This is what comes immediately to mind as a possible explanation.

But I asked Chris and he said that with Audyssey (Pro) both products shouldn't keep their own sonic identity, as after calibration they should rather sound the same... and that was @ Oct'11...

Now did I compare all these products without Audyssey Pro? Definitively no! As being a pure "amateur", my pleasure doesn't lie in comparing products, but rather in using them (when I have time).

Hugo

That's not what I would say. Assuming Hugo's observation is accurate, it would seem that Audyssey should be asked to compare the frequency responses of the Pro kit on the Denon and Onkyo receivers to see if there is an error in either the Pro kit or how its curves are implemented in the various makes of receivers.

But don't most folks around here believe that two modern, competently designed amplifiers, when driven within spec, will sound identical (impossible to A/B) and measure nearly the same? Can we infer you do not subscribe to that camp?

You posted this over in the acoustics thread, please don't double post. Read what I posted over there, and then come back with that understanding if you want to talk about Audyssey specifically (not room construction).

I tend to agree with this post regarding the 4311ci, but have never compared it to another XT32-equipped receiver, so I always assumed it was Audyssey introducing the sibilance. Thanks for sharing, as I may check out one of the other brands to compare.

I too love the resulting sound--much better overall then I've ever had before--but I do feel like I have to fiddle with the treble in Pro more than should be required.

I am curious as to everyones thoughts on using XT in conjunction with a SMS-1. Is it redundant and not worth it? Does it help you get better EQ on the sub similar but not as good as XT32.

I am looking at a refurb Onkyo 709 with XT and unless the street price of the 818 comes down drastically its out of my price range.

Currently I only have 1 sub, but plan to run duals at some point in the front corners of my room.

Just a quick note. I finally did my first MultEQ XT calibration (or any Audyssey "calibration" for that matter) in my new theater. I am using an Onkyo 709... I was waiting for the bass traps and a treated front wall. I was very skeptical that I would notice much of a difference after running it since I took care during construction to try to get at least the "bones" of the room right, and treat some of the acoustics inside the room.

About 30 minutes after I started, I was done with the calibration. I popped in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol and watched it up to the part where they "light the fuse" (15 minutes maybe).

It sounded so good before Audyssey... It sounded AMAZING after. Holy crap! Things that I didn't even know where in the soundtrack, or the surround data, or even just in the front soundstage, were now audible and clear. Nothing was overpowering, and it made for an awesome experience. When Ethan Hunt is in the prison playing catch with that rock, I swear if I was blind folded, I could point out on the screen exactly where the window frame is that he is bouncing the rock off of and where his hand is when he catches it. Everything was THAT detailed.

So anyway, I was so excited, i wanted to at least post about it. I have no experience with Audyssey in a really challenging room, but if it can make a pretty decent dedicated room sound this good, I would think that it would help some of the really problematic ones too.

Hi again,


Maybe Kal Rubinson could have a look as (if memory serves) he was the one who uncovered the Pro bug initially built in the 5508... Kal?

Hugo

Awesome idea! Why don't you ask them to prove that to you and see how far you get? It's one thing to swap out a damaged microphone, but quite another to get that level of service.

That was kinda my point about Audyssey being very helpful up to a point in troubleshooting issues.

It would be an interesting question to forum member Kal, if he hears any differences in XT32 implementations on various manufacturers' receivers, or do they all end up sounding more-or-less the same once calibrated?

Amplifiers yes, AVR's not necessarily.

Cheers,
SB

Why would I do that? I don't have a Pro kit, nor do I have an Onkyo receiver. So, I don't have a problem for them to look for.

If you're not happy with the level of customer service you believe you've received from Audyssey, that's between you and them, not you and me.

I'm done here, and am moving on. Life is too short.

Audyssey is used to correct the curve (to the best of it's ability) in an attempt to give a flat response - which is very different to making everything sound the same. Speakers sound different, Power Amps sound different and Processors sound different. If Audyssey could make everything sound the same then we'd all buy cheap crap, as there would be no need for anything else.

A competent reviewer would hold all of those variables constant (room, speakers, etc.) as much as possible if the goal was to see if Audyssey-implementations sounded more-or-less the same in competing, similarly built/priced AVRs.

And isn't that what we are doing here, though, talking about an "Audyssey-sound" across literally thousands of different configurations? It is the very fact that we are using Audyssey that should make our systems sound more similar and hence more comparable with each other. That is the entire premise of the Audyssey promise--to get each of us as close to a single, "correct" reference sound as possible.

"But I asked Chris and he said that with Audyssey (Pro) both products shouldn't keep their own sonic identity, as after calibration they should rather sound the same... and that was @ Oct'11... "

It sounds like you disagree then with Chris on this point?

You guys are talking about two different things. Saying XT32 + Pro should make any two $2000 receivers sound essentially the same is not equivalent to the straw man argument that Audyssey should therefore be able to make a junk setup sound the same as a high end setup.

Yes and that was because it was apparent to me that the XT32/Pro calibration was inferior to the regular XT32 calibration.
BTW, it was with an Integra DHC-80.2.


I have no idea as I have used the XT32 only in the above-mentioned Integra.